Saturday, October 6, 2012

Chauncey DeVega and Nikki Giovanni are Part of a Vast Black Conspiracy to Take Your Guns Away

I have an alert set in Google that sends me an email whenever my name is mentioned somewhere on these Internets. Little did I know that I was part of a vast conspiracy to take away white people's guns, and also to deny said firearms to poor African-Americans.

In a dark corner of the gun nut Right-wing blogosphere, I have been elevated to the level of Nikki Giovanni (god, I wish I had 1/100th of her talent or success). I am also apparently an "intellectual" (I wish), a well-funded operative of the Left (I wish I had those duckets), and breathing rarefied air as one of those hateful, elitist, academics (negro please!).

It is fascinating when conservatives who live in one of the most heavily armed countries in the world, one that is literally awash with guns, imagine themselves as somehow being under siege. Their mania feeds itself in a vicious cycle--"They" are coming for our guns, we must therefore get more guns to protect our "liberty." When white racial anxiety and hostility towards people of color is introduced into this phantom peril nothing good can come of it. As such, in the Age of Obama we must all be extremely cautious about white domestic terrorism.

Codrea's essay is a prize of overwrought writing, right-wing smart people sounding scary words, and overuse of a thesaurus. Beyond its title, which also demands deconstruction as an object lesson in unstated assumptions and the white racial frame, there are several passages which are especially dense with the Right-wing talking points of the post civil rights era. Consequently, David's effort has done the service of providing a teachable moment.

For example, in the following passage he argues that white people are oppressed. Uppity black liberals are troublemakers. Black achievement is to be disparaged. Racism is caused by people of color, and those others who dare to talk about social inequality and power. And working towards social justice and forcing America to live up to its democratic creed is somehow a threat to "the individual."

Two separate statements from prominent black intellectuals made Tuesday, one from Chicago and one from Virginia Tech, reveal anti-gun bigotry with foundations that include chronic dismissal of whites through negative stereotypes. Writing for Open Salon, commentator and editor of the “We are Respectable Negroes” blog Chauncey DeVega, and poet and “distinguished professor of English” Nikki Giovanni, both with an established history of fixating on race, used their positions of influence to advance the collective at the expense of the individual, widen the racial divide, and disparage guns and gun owners.

The troglodyte plebes of contemporary conservatism are also factually and historically challenged, possessing a deep habit of misreading facts to serve their own purposes.

That he understands the importance of the right to bear arms is evident when he writes “[T]he systematic disarmament of black men in this country after the Civil War was designed to make the African-American community especially vulnerable to white mob violence…”

Many conservative bloviators have taken up the claim that it is the Democrats who have always wanted to take guns from black people because they are the "party of the KKK" and white supremacy. These claims are absurd on their face: the Dixiecrats are now the base of the Tea Party GOP; The Republican Party is a Southern Party that has inherited the ghosts and demons of Jim and Jane Crow; The GOP is the country's de facto White Party and has been dependent for at least four decades on a strategy of ginning up white racial resentment and overt bigotry to win elections.

These same conservatives ignore how Republicans have packaged themselves as the party of "law and order" which will do anything to keep the black and urban poor in jail (and "under control"). The last thing the party of Willie Horton wants is to have more "urban blacks" with guns. The contradiction is deep here: for the Right, white gun ownership is a means of protecting those good white voters from those rampaging black flash mob hordes which every good white suburban family lives in dread of. Save for some crude political calculus of fueling white racial fears, why would white conservatives want to see blacks armed with more guns?

The Right and its foot soldiers are full of rage; anger is an existential condition for them. They are upset at liberals, elites, the media, the poor, people of color, Democrats, intellectuals, gays, those in evil liberal America and on either coast, and big Hollywood.

The Culture War has caused much fratricide on the Right. While a flag to rally around, one that has given the most intellectually challenged on the Right a set of code words and talking points with which to frame their own version of reality, its long term impact has been to encourage "conspiranoid" fantasies, and tired, stale thinking. In all, many of the populist Right are re-fighting the Cold War. Others even want a do over for the Civil War too.

What Giovanni and DeVega and the countless opportunistic hate mongers milking it for all its worth don’t seem to realize is the Boy-Who-Cried-Wolf-desensitizing to the new scarlet letter (“R”) their screaming “Racism!” every chance they get has produced. If everything conservatives say is racist, right down to “code words” like “Chicago” and “the,” the sting of having that accusation leveled is gone for those who simply will not suffer fools, and with it goes the fear to engage and fire back with merited ridicule and scorn. Anyone with an ounce of self-confidence will simply not care what such morally and intellectually irrelevant misfits spew.

When screamed by privileged dilettantes without…discrimination, it loses its meaning and its power, and does an obscene disservice to those who have suffered and endured true racist oppression. It also leads to the nagging suspicion that the color preoccupying those doing the exploiting has a lot less to do with blacks than it does with Reds.

Apparently, the commies who were manipulating Dr. King are coming to get White America in the Age of Obama. Those privileged black and brown folks in this society--you do know that white people are systematically disadvantaged in America didn't you?--are the real hate mongers because we dare to make some white people, conservatives especially, uncomfortable. One can never forget that racism (or sexism, classism, or homophobia) does not really count unless we allow white white folks to define it in terms that are most agreeable to them.

In total, racism is a fiction spun out of the ether because of all the advantages which it gives to black and brown folks.

[I lost 10 IQ points just writing such a foolish statement--nevertheless such fictions are truths for those who are taking hits of political meth from Fox News and the Right-wing media. No wonder their minds are so damaged, and their ability to reason so impugned.]

Ultimately, I do wish black folks were organized enough to be part of a vast conspiracy. We are not hive minds or the Borg. For all of the Right's opines about individual freedom and liberty, they are incapable of seeing people of color as individuals who simply do not like them, and find contemporary conservatism most disagreeable and problematic.

I musk ask, where do people like David Codrea come from? Are they just spawns and afterbirth of Fox News and the Right-wing echo chamber? Are they they just the new/old face of petit authoritarianism in an era of colorblind racism?

79 comments:

Cavoyo
said...

Did you see that link about so called "code words" being racist? Goodness gracious. Do Coulter and Codrea not understand what context is? That the meanings of words change depending on how and when they're used? Or maybe they just think that the only way racism operates is through people saying certain naughty words that are racist in all contexts, such as the n word. So the only way someone can say something racist is if one of the words in their sentence is a naughty word.

Know I'm starting to understand what M.L. King was talking about when he referred to the burden of racism on white people and especially white men. Can you imagine what it's like to as a class be responsible for so much misery while living in such self righteous denial, that guns become the corner stone and foundation of your id, ego, and super ego, and therefore must be defended against any minor threat?

@David. And that gets you points? That is just like the right-wing bloviators talking about Abraham Lincoln every ten seconds. Utter Silliness.

Goodness. I think brother brown would be most disturbed by your politics, and if you are the tea party gop reverse racism type that your writing suggests, he would most certainly be disgusted. Thanks for chiming in though.

@Invisible. Fear of national castration, I don't know...

@Cavoyo. You are braver than me, I didn't want to look too deep into that cesspool of alternate reality and "facts."

I think that's a part of it Chauncey Old Bean, the gun being an extension of some other appendage historically judged as less than, giving rise to feelings of inadequacy, that produced so much "strange fruit" on southern trees.

Actually, you might do well to crack a real history book. One that actually tells the history of the Republican Party, past and present.

A book that tells the actual reasons for the War of Southern Secession - and the results for a great many of the freedmen. But I believe the very idea would fill you with horror.

But since you want gun control - let me suggest you find and point out to me a single gun control law that has ever done anything but elevate violent crime and homicide rates. Some by a factor of 100 times or more.

You can find this old man quite easily. "Strangers gun blog" is a misnomer but it will find me.

Come on over at teach me something. Or come on over and be taught. By someone who baited hooks for former slaves and learned what slavery was like on a creek bank, not out of a book.

It never fails to impress me how the side who claims victim status doesn't jump, but absolutely LEAPS at rhetoric of destroying physically those they disagree with. For all the Right clings to guns, they're all the more glad that the mentally unfit gross population of the left has forsworn them. People who drag the language of pest control into political discourse over petty social disagreements ought not to be allowed near a butter knife.

Consider me a messenger. I don't care if this gets approved. You'll read it and that's good enough.

I want you to know, despite your insane non-thought "privilege" Marxist horsehit, this has nothing to do with your race. It has everything to do with your existential war of extermination against me. We will no longer be your slaves, and be told to shut up and like it. We will no longer be told that our Constitutionally recognized human rights should be violated even further. Believe what you want, including this easily digestible solid of "privilege" dumb people who like to pretend to be smart believe, but this is the reality.

There's a war coming. A war you can't win. A war you likely can't even see. Here is what is going to happen to you if one of us catches you during or after this war:

1. Your fingers will be cut off, joint by joint. The toes are a little tricky, so they come off in one shot. Lucky you.

2. Every single one of your teeth will be pried out. There's a trick here where you can actually choke to death, screaming, on your own blood here, but you're not getting off this easy.

3. Your genitals will be mutilated.

4. If we have the gear, your entire lower jaw will be removed.

5. If not, the eyes. They come out easy.

I should also point out there will be a plethora of injectables nearby, to keep you conscious during all this.

If any loved ones are nearby, they get this first as you're forced to watch.

If you think we don't have the will or knowledge to do this, that's perfectly fine.

Again, I beg you, with tears in my eyes, this has nothing to do with race. Your white counterparts will get the same treatment.

A reminder:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julius_Streicher

We aren't going to play by the rules. We aren't going to play nice. Watch what you say, for we are watching you.

Haaa Haaaaa Haaaaaa...this is the face of gun rights! Internet crazies that can only wish a race war would happen so that they can gain help in there perverted dreams. CDv he wants to keep you body parts...really sad cowards like him have the right to the internet. It's funny what a story on Gun Control can start. He would have said more if his mother hadn't made him take out the trash.

PS if you say NRA three times in the mirror they will come and get you.

It never fails to impress me how the side who claims victim status doesn't jump, but absolutely LEAPS at rhetoric of destroying physically those they disagree with. – Anonymous

How silly of you Anon, the words physical and physiology are somewhat similar in spelling but they have starkly different meanings:

Physiology: the branch of biology that deals with the normal functions of living organisms and their parts.

Physical: Of or relating to the body as distinguished from the mind or spirit.

In other words, if it was physiological possible to un-birth cretins like you, I’d merely place you back into the orifice from which you sprung forth from. That wouldn’t be considered violence because I’m merely placing you back into your ensconced packaging!

Conversely, if un-birthing an unworthy person like you was in fact possible, then it would also mean that giving birth is considered violence as well. Since when was giving birth considered a form of violence? I thought giving birth was looked upon as a natural, non-violent process.

You really don’t want to see me! Therefore, I highly suggest that you skim through a dictionary from time to time and open the pages of a book every now and then, instead of filling your mouth with antipasti and perhaps I’ll then have a virtual conversation with you. For now, take a hike!

No need to outlaw firearms Chauncey and Cavoya,"Propaganda Terrorists" is what your are. You harm innocent men, women and children with lies and hate without a gun. The power of your words destroy plenty of young minds.

Wow. That was amazing in how disgusting it was. One thing i find interesting is that these gun people believing they are under siege reminds me of America's christian population feeling similarly. They are always going on about how their rights as christians are being oppressed when 8 out of 10 Americans self identify as christian. It's really bizarre. And they blame the same people, liberals, hollywood, democrats, etc. They've fabricated an opponent bent on their existential destruction despite the fact such an opponent does not exist. Do they need to create these conspiracies to keep their numbers up? I mean without the conspiracies do they think their members would begin to question the foundations of their beleifs?

I also thought this was interesting:

"...the sting of having that accusation leveled is gone for those who simply will not suffer fools, and with it goes the fear to engage and fire back with merited ridicule and scorn. Anyone with an ounce of self-confidence will simply not care what such morally and intellectually irrelevant misfits spew."

So basically, as long as you can yell louder, talk faster, quote more bs talking points, you can defeat anyone who disagrees. Much as Gov. Romney did in the other night's debate. I think I see a trend.

Dr. Waffle - I have posted extensively about the actual results of Oz' gun laws. With actual links to official data.

Post one documented case of any restrictive gun law that has actually reduced crime on my website and I will shut up. But I have enough records and data to fill a moving van. Not one scrap of that indicates any restrictive gun law has every reduced violent crime - anywhere. While every permissive gun law has reduced violent crime and murder.

So basically, as long as you can yell louder, talk faster, quote more bs talking points, you can defeat anyone who disagrees. Much as Gov. Romney did in the other night's debate. I think I see a trend. – Tone

@Tone, you’re right on point, these so-called conservatives, Tea Party/Republican padawns, gun nut, black helicopter fearing, 2nd Amendment hugging, Islamaphobia fearing, LGBT fearing, this is my country, there is no racism, USA chanting hillbillies are always hopelessly trending towards the most absurd beliefs, merely to hype their own groupuscule importance, which is barely hovering one-tenth of a percentage point above ZERO!

Gee, and here I thought I drew a lot of cowardly hate-filled comments on MY blog from fans of Salman Khan. I see I'm playing in the minor leagues.

Kudos, CDV: you attract the real deal. I am impressed. I guess I'll have to go back to writing letters to the editor opposing the war in Iraq: that used to earn me crudely typed anonymous death letters.

@Blacksage. They love dictionaries. Remember when you were in the second grade and looked up all sorts of big smart people sounding words? That is where most of the New Right, especially the internet bloviators who are trying to parrot their heroes on Fox and Right-wing talk radio are developmentally. They are perpetually stuck in childhood--the difference is they have guns.

@Anon. "Propaganda terrorists?" A sociolinguist and a psychologist would have a field day with you. Orwell and Goebbels would both smile at you...for your amateurish hackery.

@Tone. Remember white people were oppressed during slavery too. The irony of their mess is reach and proves so much. Gun culture, especially southern gun culture, is and has long been about white supremacy. These contemptible sods are heirs to that tradition.

They exhale all sorts of mess about supporting black gun ownership; in their hearts they know that it is a rhetorical ploy to support a bigger militia/white nationalist agenda.

They are so trapped in the white racial frame that they are incapable of comprehending that a person can be for reasonable gun ownership laws and also for the right of a person to have a gun. Authoritarians, binary thinkers to the one, who are paranoid and dangerous.

For example, my paperwork is done and I will have my card to finally have a gun. Why did I do this? Personal protection and we are in a time when basic public services are being destroyed. As such, you may be called on to defend yourself.

However, I think that everyone who wants a gun should have to go to class, be evaluated by a psychologist as not insane or otherwise incompetent, and limited to two weapons--one long rifle and one pistol. Do people need semiautor military style rifles that can be modified for full auto? No. Do they need large clips? No. Ought they be able to buy machine guns, like a Ma Deuce--with a permit or not--absolutely not. Is this an affront to their "constitutional rights?" No. But, don't ask them to explain why not or the latter.

These white nationalist "patriots" think they are some type of militia that is going to face down the U.S. Army and/or rampaging negro hordes of mutant Mexican zombie cannibals. Thus, they are incapable of common sense solutions because they are so distant from reality.

@Stranger. Yes, you are strange. You must still believe in the "more guns less crime thesis" the book upon which it was based was thoroughly demolished for horrid methods and data manipulation.

Occam's razor. If more guns equals less crime why don't we simply issue every child a gun at eight years old? Moreover, make it illegal to not have a weapon that is open carried? Alternatively, we can airdrop more weapons into crime besieged inner city communities and there will be a leveling effect between shooters and victims.

My point is that there is a nice middle ground of normal common sense gun policy. Most of the gun nut far right phallocentric castration obsessed firearm crowd doesn't seem to understand that fact. Gun crime and murder rates related to firearm use are related to many variables from population density, to poverty rates, to the medical improvements from a series of wars that have radically improved survival rates from gun injuries in this country.

"However, I think that everyone who wants a gun should have to go to class, be evaluated by a psychologist as not insane or otherwise incompetent, and limited to two weapons--one long rifle and one pistol. Do people need semiautor military style rifles that can be modified for full auto? No. Do they need large clips? No. Ought they be able to buy machine guns, like a Ma Deuce--with a permit or not--absolutely not."

Good thing you are the gun expert and know exactly all thats needed to know about firearms.

Like nearly any rifle or pistol can be modified to full auto.

Like how many guns I want to own.

Gosh, I guess I'll have to use my target rifle for hunting, which is a shame because it would be dangerous to hunt with it. It's trigger is far too light. Or should I use my hunting rifle to try and hit targets out at 800 meters? Dang, it's not really set up to shoot more than 100 meters. And my plinking rifle, a PS 90 with it's 50 round magazine (and I have 5 of those mags), not sure what to do with that. So much for seeing how many times I can hit the can as it bounces further and further away. What about shotguns? Do you count that as a rifle? Can I have two shotguns please? And what about sidearms? Can I pretty please have one revolver and one pistol? And I really love my Evil Black Rifle, the not-assault rifle though it played one on TV. I might not need it, but I want it.

And as for those fun full auto machine guns? I got the opportunity to shoot a full auto Ma Deuce when I ran into some members of the Alaskan Machine Gun Club. I also got to shoot a full auto Sten machine gun (with a suppressor no less) that was used in WWII; an amazing bit of history.

Who the heck are you to tell me what I can I own, and why I can own something? Perhaps your kitchen should be limited to one serrated knife and one plain edged.

If you don't like the Second Amendment, why don't you do the lawful thing and try to amend it? Perhaps because you feel so smart, that you are above the law. You can kiss my 50 round magazine. All 5 of them; perhaps I should order more.

So tell us, Mr. DeVega, why do you think these women are unfit to arm themselves for self-defense, both against outright criminals and those who seek to rule them via a state monopoly on force?

Is it because they are of color? Or because they are women?

Or is it because you side with the robbers, rapists, murderers?

Maybe you think having a government ID, especially a badge elevates one to a class above ordinary mortals?

Do you think the right to a free press should be dependent on a state or federal License To Report? Do you think you would be issued such a license?

Here's the deal, sir: I am as white as they come, shy of albinism. I find your politics to be repugnant, outright toxic.

And I want you to go out and buy yourself a gun and learn to shoot.

I no more want to see you disarmed than I want to see you silenced. I believe that you are every bit as competent to defend with deadly force yourself, your family, your community, and your ideas as I am, as Texas black women are.

I don't know if the Anonymous (3:22 a.m.) who fantasized about torturing your family to death while forcing you to watch is truly a Second Amendment advocate or not. (I suspect not; he's probably a false-flag provocateur. I've never seen anything like that on any of the right to arms sites I've frequented.) But not only do I not agree with him, I want you armed and able to defend yourself against his kind.

I trust you to defend yourself wisely and ethically against people like him. Against, if it comes to that, me personally, should I ever go that far off the deep end.

But if you disagree with me, if you do not return my trust, then please, do not send uniformed dogs to take my guns. Er, gun.

Be a man, and do it yourself.

Molon Labe: Come and take them.

I'll be happy to give my (pitifully tiny) arsenal up, starting with the ammo, one round at a time.

But short of that, you are safe from me. I will only defend, not attack.

How about you?

===

*Apparently, blacks and Hispanics are lumped together by the Texas Dept of Public Safety, which administers the CHL program, and Rep. Stefani Carter, obviously a woman herself, reported those results accurately.

yes, i know that it is remarkably easy to convert a sidearm or rifle. You miss my point-there have to be reasonable limits on gun ownership.

You can choose to agree or disagree; we can litigate that. As I said, the idea that someone can be so obsessed with guns, where it borders on the pathological is beyond me. I don't have to understand it. But, in a society with others we can work to put reasonable limits on your ability--and that of others--to do harm with unnecessary guns.

No biggie. Pick two weapons to own, and I still don't know how you can justify owning a 50 caliber machine gun, and move on. Your "freedom" and "manhood" won't be impugned by such a limitation. It won't hurt you one bit. Are you that afraid of the Big bad gov't and black helicopters? You can choose your Sten and play British soldier circa world war 2 in the woods on the weekend and still have your pistol too.

Funny, comparing kitchen knives to full auto rifles? Are you that desperate to make a point. As I said, there may be folks who agree with some of the more reasonable parts of the NRA crowd. They hear silliness like that and move on.

Are you afraid of a psyche eval to determine your sanity for fear that you may not pass it?

@DJ. False flag? That is a common excuse when the white supremacists who are in bed with the gun crowd come out and show who they are.

They are part of your fam' own them or kick them out of your ranks. If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that I support those women owning weapons to defend their person.

Are you that much a reactionary against those "evil black liberals"--which I am not by the way--that you over look areas of agreement in order to stick to your programmed talking points?

Up your game; you are sitting at the big kids table now.

"But if you disagree with me, if you do not return my trust, then please, do not send uniformed dogs to take my guns. Er, gun.

Be a man, and do it yourself."

Why are you so paranoid and delusional? Are you in a militia? Playing army boy in the woods? Dreaming of when the boot-jacked enforcers of Homeland Security kick down your door and what you will do--get shot and killed with ruthless efficiency by the way if you don't surrender? Fantasizing about a second civil war? Crying under your American flag every day about how "you want your country back?" I would like to understand. Really. Please explain.

Also, "Or is it because you side with the robbers, rapists, murderers?"

Huh? You are new here. You obviously don't understand my thoughts on crime and the ign't classes which includes both street pirates and white militia members, and mouth-breathing reactionary racist tea party types too.

So your race obsession that is in fact pathological is okay? Alright then, I suppose you'd have no problem with segregation then? The arguments for both are exactly the same. Like it or not, I have a fundamental right to arms. If you deny me this right by law, I am left with no choice but to defend my right, which I am more than willing to do. I am willing to kill to be free. What is there not to understand?

You are not reasonable. More importantly, you can't put limits on a right. That's what the word "right" means. I have this regardless of what you think or would like it to be. So you've painted yourself into a corner, then painted yourself into a smaller portion of that corner with your statements. To summarize, you are an unreasonable, insane asshole, and you want to further violate (not limit) my human rights, because you personally disagree with them. On top of that you demonize us as some sort of despised, sub-human underclass. I am just stunned by such reasonableness!

No biggie. Pick two weapons to own, and I still don't know how you can justify owning a 50 caliber machine gun, and move on. Your "freedom" and "manhood" won't be impugned by such a limitation.

Fine then. As a black man, you get two votes in your whole life. Better make them count. Stop with that bastard-Freudian "IT'S A PENIS" shit too. And yes, my freedom will be destroyed because you have quantified my right, which at that point is no longer a right. This is also the part where you couch a denial of government oppression inside government oppression. You want me to give up my rights because I can therefore trust the very government that forcibly denied me this right? All the while speaking about us in exterminationist terms?

Also, you can't just go and buy a machine gun. I am disgusted with myself for writing even this much to a man so completely ignorant about existing firearms laws. Furthermore, even if I could, so what? Rights are not subjective nor based on need. I don't a reason to "need" a "50 caliber machine gun."

the more reasonable parts of the NRA crowd. They hear silliness like that and move on.

The NRA is not for people like me. It's for people like you. It's so you have a face to put on your enemy so you can sleep at night.

Up your game; you are sitting at the big kids table now.

You are a pathetic intellectual runt. Having to pull out shit like this demonstrates that, among other things.

Why are you so paranoid and delusional?[...]I would like to understand. Really. Please explain.

I can't speak for this man, but your label of "paranoid" and "delusional" is your own. Fact is, this has happened before. Just because you make jokes about it (Such "big boy table" arguments here, no less!), doesn't mean it isn't reality.

This perfectly sums up everything you stand for. Race fetishism, dehumanizing your perceived enemies, and grade-school level insults (I thought we were at the "big boy" table?!). You literally know nothing about your perceived enemies, but you feel comfortable characterizing them as "racist." You know nothing of the law, but feel comfortable telling people what's what. You dehumanize us and want to destroy our rights, but we're "paranoid" for the crime of disagreeing with you (And probably racists, too! Also we're all white, apparently, according to you. Or are our blacks Uncle Toms that are under false consciousness? Or do you have your concepts of race so neatly wrapped up you can speak for other races as well?).

You're not even a one trick pony. You're an automaton repeating the insanity the people you believe to be your intellectual superiors have armed you with to be the missionaries for your self-referential final concluding world though. You say you want to understand, and have someone explain it to you, but we both know you don't. Your child-like leftist ego won't let you entertain even the possibility that you are wrong, for to do so would shatter your entire world. And you've spent so many years perfectly crafting this non-reality-based world! To let it crash down now would be such a waste. You'd have to start all over again. You'd have to come to terms with reality. You might even commit the greatest sin of all and start agreeing with the white, heteronormative, Christian, scumfuck racist militia cockroaches you seem eager to exterminate.

"You are not reasonable. More importantly, you can't put limits on a right. That's what the word "right" means. I have this regardless of what you think or would like it to be. So you've painted yourself into a corner, then painted yourself into a smaller portion of that corner with your statements. To summarize, you are an unreasonable, insane asshole, and you want to further violate (not limit) my human rights, because you personally disagree with them. On top of that you demonize us as some sort of despised, sub-human underclass. I am just stunned by such reasonableness!'

Talk about Freudian projection. Are you off your meds or something? How am I taking something from you? Violating your rights? What has happened in your life to make you such a paranoid white victimologist? Is it that hard out there in your neck of the woods for white people, thus your need to spend extra income on all those guns? Do you march outside naked doing your cadence like the training scene from Full Metal Jacket?

You need a permit to get a 50 cal. You shouldn't be able to get one for any reason. Should civilians be able to buy at4 anti-tank rockets? cruise missiles, abrams tanks? Do you need that for your "well regulated militia?"

Maybe you and your friends can chip in for a SDB and strap it to your four wheeler and blow yourselves up?

Keep it coming, you are priceless comedy gold.

Your last passage could successfully compete in a beauty/ugly contest for worst written performance online in a comments section by a right-wing lunatic and/or gun nut.

There is new research that suggests that children who were not held by their mothers are significantly more likely to have low IQ's and to have a range of socially maladaptive behaviors as adults.

Were you not loved as a child? We cannot fix the brain development issues; however, some counseling could help you be more high functioning.

"False flag? That is a common excuse....They are part of your fam' own them or kick them out of your ranks."

OK, I'll acknowledge that there are whacko white supremacists out there who use the human right to keep and bear arms for self defense as cover for arming themselves as terrorists. They exist, they're out there, and they're horribly dangerous.

I wish I could "kick them out". Regrettably, I am not a gate keeper of any kind. All I can do advocate that all citizens, of any color, arm themselves and be prepared to defend themselves against violent hatred as Anon 3:22 evidenced. We are all, everyone of us, gatekeepers against the violence and hate in that post.

All I am saying, and all Codrea is saying, is that you should have easy, uncontrolled access to the tools needed for the job. Because people like 3:22 do. Gun control laws do not affect people like him.

There are also black whackos out there looking to kill whitey. Will you "own them and kick them out", or do you suffer the delusion that having dark skin somehow shields them from human frailty?

"Why are you so paranoid and delusional? Are you in a militia?"

Do you want to take guns away from anybody who has not committed a violent crime? Then I am not paranoid. Even you don't, I am still not delusional, because there's plenty of folks out there who do, and a lot of them are as white as I am. Many of them hold elective office, and many of them have badges.

Yes, I am in a militia, as defined by the founders: the militia "is the whole of the people," at least those who have gone to the trouble to arm themselves.

If you have not already done so, I encourage you to arm yourself, become proficient, and thus join the militia as well.

I don't know if you a "respectable negro" and don't much care; it's not clear to me that I am a respectable white. I think respectability is overrated. As long as you do not advocate or commit violence against me and mine, I would welcome you as a fellow in arms.

Speaking of the "whole of the people" and the cell phone lady, if instead of cell phones, the federal government was handing out rifles, I'd have no problem with that. Why not? It's one of Congress' enumerated Article 1, Section 8 powers: "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia".

As you pointed out, gun control did indeed originate in an attempt to disarm the disenfranchised, and not just post-Civil War. The very first gun control laws I know of, colonial statutes going back to the 1640s, specifically denied arms to Indians, indentured servants, and slaves. Of course those laws have expanded to disarm everybody. Those who would rule, rather than lead, do not like their subjects able to shoot back.

Why, then, are you attacking those of us who support people of all colors and classes, male and female, arming themselves against crime, terrorism, and tyranny?

You think angry white crazy people are out to get you? You're probably right. I am "new here", so maybe I've missed it, but do you advocate that angry black citizens, not just the "respectable" ones, arm themselves?

I'll just break the preceived mold here by stating that I am a proud "hispanic" male who just happens to own a few guns..

I make no apologies for my firearms, nor for a lifetime of shooting that I have engaged and enjoyed since at least the age of 13. I am now 41.

I also make no apologies for being armed in my own home a few years ago, when multiple individuals attempted a home invasion of my dwelling. I waited roughly 35 minutes for the police to get there while they were trying to get in both the backdoor and the front. Lucky for them, they didn't get in. If they had, they would have dealt with my and my loaded firearm. VERY LUCKY FOR THEM! My wife was hiding in the closet with my 6 month old baby girl. She was talking to police dispatch the whole time. I was by the bedroom, trying to keep an eye on both doors. The lights were on, the TV was on, I was shouting warnings, and they still kept trying to get in. They kept trying even AFTER I set the house alarm off. They finally drove off, and the police arrived about 10 minutes later. They had been trying for at least 20-25 minutes to get in. All the while, my wife was on the phone with dispatch. As far as I know, those guys got away that night and probably victinmized sombody else. Who knows?

The point is, I was lucky and I was ready. I will not give up my guns, just because some ivory tower, meely mouthed, liberal intellectuals decide that all protection should be the sole responsibility of the state.

I grew up in the Texas border town of McAllen, Texas and still have family down there. Mexico, a country where guns are pretty much forbidden is rank with cartel violence. The citizens there are not only not protected by their government, their very gov't has denied them any means to protect themselves. It's like being on a hostile playground and praying that the bullies don't notice you and move on to sombody else. In the meantime, people die, children die, and all at the whim of evil men who know no bounds when it comes to evil.

I am convinced that the violence that so thoroughly defines Mexico has not spilled over en masse to the US side of the border, because people here (especially, the people of Texas) would not suffer them or their murderous antics. The citizens of the US have the capacity to shoot back, the citizens here will not be cowed and permit themselves to be ground up like soo much fertilizer on a freshly plowed field.

Geez CDV, I knew you were a talented brother, but I did not know that you had the ability to raise Nathan Bedford Forrest from the grave. Make sure you don’t go anywhere near Fort Pillow.

Since I’m relatively new to the site did you previously take a position on McDonald v Chicago; particularly the opinion written by Clarence Thomas.

[Referring to the disarming of blacks during (slavery) and the post-Reconstruction era, Thomas wrote: "It was the 'duty' of white citizen 'patrols to search negro houses and other suspected places for firearms.' If they found any firearms, the patrols were to take the offending slave or free black 'to the nearest justice of the peace' whereupon he would be 'severely punished.' Militias such as the Ku Klux Klan, the Knights of the White Camellia, the White Brotherhood, the Pale Faces and the '76 Association spread terror among blacks. . . . The use of firearms for self-defense was often the only way black citizens could protect themselves from mob violence."]-- WaPo

@MB. I am a necromancer. Causes no end to my troubles. I remember that opinion, given Clarence Thomas' de facto support of white racism I was surprised by his move, but then again he is there to marshal his contingent blackness in support of Scalia and other far Right causes when the former isn't sleeping through hearings.

@Jose. Taking you at face value and assuming you are not performing some type of virtual brown face routine as though that will make correct your position--there are many overly White identified minorities in this country. George Zimmerman is a great example.

I feel badly for you. Trauma can really impact a person's sense of security, self, and yes, reason.

I support responsible gun ownership. If you were limited to two or even one gun it would not have changed your ability to protect yourself--unless you want to have a gun in every room of the house, the bathroom, trunk of the car, and behind the mini bar.

Having to take a course and get properly licensed to have a gun would not impact your ability to protect yourself either. Having to go to a shrink or doctor and be certified as not dangerous to others, would presumably, not have kept you from protecting your family.

Many of the gun nut crowd generalize from stories such as your own without thinking in a mature or sane manner, and this puts them in an untenable position.

For example, terrorists highjack a plane. Does that then mean we would change laws to make sure that people on the ground can carry around SAM's just in case said event occurs? Hell, what about giving out guns on the plane or in movie theaters? That would make all us much safer, no?

Let's imagine, there are riots and I am left wishing that I had a minigun or zsu-23-4 outside my house. Does that mean such weapons should be available for all people at all times? In your case, should you have been able to line your home with claymore mines?

How about this one? Gun nuts love to talk about defensive gun use and by the FBI's stats supposedly more people are killed by bats each year and other blunt weapons than guns.

Okay, that tells me nothing about the potential for a given gun to hurt far more people in a given incident. By extension, I would bet money that more people are permanently blinded each year by having salt thrown in their eyes than by industrial grade acid. We should not then conclude that salt ought to be banned and acid sold at the supermarket. There is a reason that despite aggregate stats--which do not scale down by the way, a methods point that many do not understand--industrial acid must be obtained with a permit.

Living in society with others means that we compromise, use our good sense, and have to maintain a balance between negative and positive liberty. We ought not to always pass laws based on the worst case scenario, especially when preparing for such outliers will leave all of us collectively imperiled.

Talk about Freudian projection. Are you off your meds or something? How am I taking something from you? Violating your rights? What has happened in your life to make you such a paranoid white victimologist? Is it that hard out there in your neck of the woods for white people, thus your need to spend extra income on all those guns? Do you march outside naked doing your cadence like the training scene from Full Metal Jacket?

Some more of that "big boy table" talk? What the fuck is this, other than a collection of pathetic insults? Yes, you are taking both physical objects and my rights, away from me when you violate a right that covers physical objects.

You need a permit to get a 50 cal.

No you don't. This is a fact of law. I don't see how you can say this and not understand you are either a flagrant liar, or just plain stupid.

You shouldn't be able to get one for any reason.

Why not? Why do I need any of my rights? Again, rights are not subjective, nor based on need. I have my rights for existing as a human being.

Should civilians be able to buy at4 anti-tank rockets? cruise missiles, abrams tanks? Do you need that for your "well regulated militia?"

I am not a civilian. I am a citizen. And yes, to answer your question. "Arms" cover all implements of war. Or did you throw out this ridiculous example to get someone to say that "Oh, well, gee I don't know about that"?

Maybe you and your friends can chip in for a SDB and strap it to your four wheeler and blow yourselves up?

Keep it coming, you are priceless comedy gold.

Your last passage could successfully compete in a beauty/ugly contest for worst written performance online in a comments section by a right-wing lunatic and/or gun nut.

There is new research that suggests that children who were not held by their mothers are significantly more likely to have low IQ's and to have a range of socially maladaptive behaviors as adults.

Were you not loved as a child? We cannot fix the brain development issues; however, some counseling could help you be more high functioning.

Keep up the ad hominem attacks. It means you're winning. If that last comment is what you say it is, what is your collection of insane, "pragmatist" ramblings, crude insults, racist stereotypes, and a complete lack of understanding of how social science works?

So aside from demonstrating over and over you literally have no idea what you are talking about with regards to anything, yet acting like some sort of supreme font of reasoned, nuanced thought, what do you have to say? Other than calling people who present you with arguments you are too stupid or stubborn to understand mentally deficient? More insults? More snark? More ridiculous hypothetical scenarios? More racist stereotypes you cobbled together from some movies you've seen?

@Anon. Please pick a name, even as a signature, so that people can follow you. If not, I will have to delete your comments.

Are you a performance artist?

"Should civilians be able to buy at4 anti-tank rockets? cruise missiles, abrams tanks? Do you need that for your "well regulated militia?"

I am not a civilian. I am a citizen. And yes, to answer your question. "Arms" cover all implements of war. Or did you throw out this ridiculous example to get someone to say that "Oh, well, gee I don't know about that"? "

What about nuclear weapons? Should you be able to buy those too? How old are you? 13? Are you camping out to see the new Red Dawn movie? Excited? The original was much better.

On the permit issue, it varies by state. As I understand it you still need a special permit through the DOJ to have such a weapon. I may very well be wrong on how the law has changed. If it is easier than that to get a weapon with no reasonable or sensible civilian use I stand corrected--and that demonstrates the madness of this country's gun law and the NRA's vice grip on our safety.

Again, please explain to me what any person needs an anti-personnel/anti-material weapon for that can tear bodies in half or go through multiple houses at once? That is a weapon for an armored vehicle or world war 2 aircraft. Should you be able to buy incendiary rounds, c4, claymore mines? Napalm? Cluster bombs? Where do you draw the line?

Is it that arousing and exciting? Is that the point of all your gun fetish mess?

Go ahead and delete whatever you want. You've already demonstrated you're an ignorant coward, so that would only be fitting. Just like your ideological type, you can't hack it intellectually, so you ridicule and silence.

What about nuclear weapons? Should you be able to buy those too? How old are you? 13? Are you camping out to see the new Red Dawn movie? Excited? The original was much better.

*Yawn* More insults, ridiculous hypotheticans, and hey look! A Red Dawn reference. How fresh and unique and big bog.

On the permit issue, it varies by state. As I understand it you still need a special permit through the DOJ to have such a weapon. I may very well be wrong on how the law has changed. If it is easier than that to get a weapon with no reasonable or sensible civilian use I stand corrected--and that demonstrates the madness of this country's gun law and the NRA's vice grip on our safety.

Literally no state, nor the federal government, requires permitting for owning a .50 BMG firearm. California banned them outright, but that is is. Some states require a permit to obtain any weapon, but there is nothing specific to .50 BMG weapons.

Funny how this is all the dastardly work of the spooky NRA. Nope, not about my human rights, or something more pragmatic like my safety, or even the actual will of the people. It's all the NRA! They got you under a spell! OOGA BOOGA!

Again, please explain to me what any person needs an anti-personnel/anti-material weapon for that can tear bodies in half or go through multiple houses at once? That is a weapon for an armored vehicle or world war 2 aircraft. Should you be able to buy incendiary rounds, c4, claymore mines? Napalm? Cluster bombs? Where do you draw the line?

And what part about "there is no need for a need" do you not understand? I'm very happy you took the time to go to wikipedia and pick up some "insider" terms like "anti-personnel/anti-material." Boy, that sure impressed me. Protip: every firearm is anti-personnel.

What are you basing the ballistic performance of .50 BMG rifles on? What you see in movies? No, I'm sorry, they don't rip bodies in half, blow off arms with a glancing hit, explode you from the inside, blow planes out of the sky, shoot down satellites, or shoot thunder from the muzzle.

Is it that arousing and exciting? Is that the point of all your gun fetish mess?

You know, when I mock-predict your own stupidity, the implication is that you don't walk right into it.

Does your race fetishism do anything for you, sexually? See, I'm no good at the lowbrow insults while trying to affect an air of superiority.

Alas it is way past my bedtime and my insomnia beckons me formulate a response at this late hour.

First of all, I can assure you, this "brownface" is authentic, although some have thought me of middle eastern descent (happens quite frequently when I visit places that serve good kabob)

You mentioned responses to hijackings. After 9/11 we did hire many new air marshals. Those individuals now fly discreetly on many an airline, ready to bring their weapopns to bear should the need arise. A well thought out response to terrorism. The marshals are the figuative "air bag" that will deploy should the bad guys attempt a repeat of Sept 11. Bad guys on planes, guns to meet the threat (proportionate response).

You also mentioned claymores on my front lawn in the name of home defense. Sir, I know the example that you are trying to make, but think of it as trying to stick a steel I beam into sheetrock in order to hang a small family picture frame. Proportion to the size of the job ( I hope I worded that correctly). Claymores may work wonders on invading armies, or zombies on the lawn, but the poor mailman, cookie selling girl scouts, etc would not appreciate it. I guess what I'm trying to say is "right tool for the right job".

I would never use an M1 Garand for home defense in an urban neighborhood because the .30-06 round could penetrate my walls and my neighbor's walls. Many rounds exist today that can be used safely as far as home defense is concerned. Buckshot on the home invader, claymore no. I know you know this, I'm just trying to let you know that I understand the concept of overkill to.

One more thing. I don't know where you live, but as far as passing out handguns in movie theatres, there's not a need for that in Texas. Between the cops carrying their off duty pistols and the many thousands of licensed concealed carry practitioners in tis state, I'm sure the theatres here are already covered in some formm or another and most Texans wouldn't have room for another gun were they to be passed out. Just my 2 cents on the matter.

Anyway Mr. Vega, I have other interests beyond the venue of firearms. I am also a heavy advocate for cycling and try to ride as much as I can. Yes, even the occasional charity ride I'm even trying to build a 1930's "Path Racer" that I salivate about each time I picture it finished. The world of cycling is even more diverse than the world of firearms ownership, but a topic for another blog perhaps.

We're not all obsessed.Guns just happen to be a part of our lives. Tools to be respected and handled thoughtfully.

@Jose. Agree to disagree. Do chime in more often. As I said, there is lots that we agree upon; other things no. That is cool. The point is for reasonable folks to be to talk to one another.

@Anon. Grow up. Are you 12?

You can pick a name to comment with.

As I said, you are much fun. You have no idea what I know, or who I am. You may very well have your knowledge of weaponry from Call of Duty for all I know. My point stands, there is no reason for a private citizen to have a 50 cal.. None at all. And no, I didn't need to go to wiki to discuss matters re: military affairs and related matters that I have spent decades reading about, and with professionals whom I have talked to and know in the "real world," i.e. not these internets.

Turn on CSPAN or watch cable news. I know a few of those experts on IR and defense matters; I also know real operators, consultants, and contractors. No biggie. Just a corrective for your silliness.

As I said--repeatedly--I believe in responsible gun ownership. That should not scare you.

It is late, once more, why do you need a manpad? A 50 cal. machine gun? A Barrett sniper rifle? Anti-tank rockets? What are you defending the republic from super-citizen? Invading Chinese hordes secretly maneuvering in Texas?

CDV, you’re wasting your time and spinning your wheels conversing with that Anonymous guy. However, Jose (Anonymous) seems to be a man of reason. He hasn’t allowed his own terrifying experience to get the best of him and subsequently seeks to place an order of Rocket-Propelled Grenade Launchers on fast track to his residence. On the other hand, the other Anonymous guy appears to be standing at the intersection of madness and incoherency with two backpacks filled with homemade IEDs. There is currently no hope for him at this moment! Whatever his problem is, it must be allowed to run its uninterrupted course for a chance of reality to reappear within his focus and on his own terms.

The writer of this article throws insults & childish comments in equal measure, rather than attempt a rational & subjective rebuttal of those comments upon which he disagrees.This serves to point up the correctness of their assertion as to the writer's disdain for freedom; so long as it isn't his.

"As such, in the Age of Obama we must all be extremely cautious about white domestic terrorism."

This is ridiculous. How many examples are there over the last 4 years of a white man actually carrying out domestic terrorism here in the US? If there are more than a couple they haven't been well publicized. It's just not common.

And it certainly isn't as common as crowds of black youths convening (like at the Minnesota state fair) and attacking white people specifically.

You accuse a lot of the people posting here of closeted fears and misdirections of angst. Your statement about the white-terrorism is rife with the same fear.

@American. What universe are you living in? From the militia movement's growth, the record rise in hate groups, church and mosque burnings, shootings against black and brown people by white nationalists, the planned mlk ied attack, the shooting of the Sikh temple, etc. etc. etc.

Do you just watch Fox News? Goodness--to live a life of denial must be so comforting.

Question: "American" is your name? Are you a superhero? What powers do you have? Do you walk around with a laminated copy of the Constitution in your pocket and divine its meaning like an oracle?

Are you one of the new Watchmen? I like your recycling of right-wing verbiage. Very entertaining. Please give me some specifics, if you are capable, of my "anti-freedom" and "anti-rights" agenda? Please enlighten me.

Invisible Man said... I think that's a part of it Chauncey Old Bean, the gun being an extension of some other appendage historically judged as less than, giving rise to feelings of inadequacy, that produced so much "strange fruit" on southern trees.

Yeah. Must be why so many wimmins is buying up handguns like pistacio latte. Right, negro?

"What universe are you living in? From the militia movement's growth, the record rise in hate groups, church and mosque burnings, shootings against black and brown people by white nationalists, the planned mlk ied attack, the shooting of the Sikh temple, etc. etc. etc

I think you'll find the vast majority of shootings are "black on black".

Only one example of your "anti freedom" agenda is needed: You are against the RIGHT to keep & bear arms as protected in the US Constitution.What part of "shall not be infringed" is beyond your comprehension?

Now go back to your ad hominems, as you are plainly incapable of rational debate without recourse to name-calling & bigotry.

@Bh. I will feed the trolls, why not. You said a mouthful there--get the joke?

@Billwatchmen. What is your superpower? "Ad hominem" is one of the new right wing smart people words you learned from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. I can see the late, great, Jackie Gleason doing a comedy bit where he keeps saying "ad hominen" over and over again with that affect he nailed on the Honeymooners.

You are a silly rabbit. Share some more. If you want to live in denial about white domestic terrorists feel free to do so. Once Rush and Fox News give you permission to come out of your dreamworld perhaps then you will see reality for what it is.

So that's a great big fail from you then.Like most socialists, you abhor the thought of individuals being perfectly capable of looking after themselves without an overbearing & omnipotent government(a part of which you fantasize to be).

Oh; I think Glenn & Rush are a pair of populist commentators about on par with yourself.

Tell me again how blacks shooting blacks is all part of the white man's plan to keep Negroes from ever progressing.

By the way; I'm English & reside on the other side of the Pond, so I know fine well what happens when one's Right to keep & bear arms is infringed: We have a violent crime rate double that of the US....

Only one example of your (CDV) "anti freedom" agenda is needed: You are against the RIGHT to keep & bear arms as protected in the US Constitution. What part of "shall not be infringed" is beyond your comprehension? – Bill O’Rites

@Bill O, you are such a farce. Where within Chauncey’s article did he state that he’s against “The right to keep and bear arms?” Furthermore, you refer to Chauncey as being a bigot, how so? Something is amiss here, in addition to an obvious disconnect between what Chauncey wrote and the words that you attempt to attribute or coerce upon him. I’m waiting!

"Like most socialists, you abhor the thought of individuals being perfectly capable of looking after themselves without an overbearing & omnipotent government(a part of which you fantasize to be)."

Huh. You really are drunk on the good English meed. Someone who believes that you should be limited to "gosh" 2 guns is a Socialist. Okay. Do you use your country's national health service, have a pension? Are you aiding and abetting "socialism?"

Where do you get your black on black crime obsession from, or that I am not hard on ign't culture? Wow. You need to 1) read more and 2) realize that not all black people are 2 dimensional scripts from a bad white nationalist fantasy.

Me and Rush and Beck having nothing in common. I do wish I had a tenth of their money earned from pilfering the mouth breathing conservative Tea Party brigands though.

As I said, you are much fun. You have no idea what I know, or who I am. You may very well have your knowledge of weaponry from Call of Duty for all I know.

You literally know nothing. You have demonstrated that many, many times over. Does fear of the unknown motivate you to say such ridiculous things like I learned about weapons from a video game?

My point stands, there is no reason for a private citizen to have a 50 cal.. None at all. And no, I didn't need to go to wiki to discuss matters re: military affairs and related matters that I have spent decades reading about, and with professionals whom I have talked to and know in the "real world," i.e. not these internets.

That's not "a point." That's your absurd, ill-informed opinion that you have convinced yourself is an objective fact.

What books have you read? What "professionals" have you learned from? You haven't absorbed much, I can tell you that.

Turn on CSPAN or watch cable news. I know a few of those experts on IR and defense matters; I also know real operators, consultants, and contractors. No biggie. Just a corrective for your silliness.

Fucking hilarious.

As I said--repeatedly--I believe in responsible gun ownership. That should not scare you.

You do not get to determine what is "responsible." Especially not about my human rights. At one point, "responsible" voting meant you had to pay a poll tax.

It is late, once more, why do you need a manpad? A 50 cal. machine gun? A Barrett sniper rifle? Anti-tank rockets? What are you defending the republic from super-citizen? Invading Chinese hordes secretly maneuvering in Texas?

Oh, that fancy book-learning and information expert professionals you talked to (or watched on CSPAN!) makes another appearance. You can't buy any machine gun. At all. Regardless of caliber. Please, lecture me some more about your intricate knowledge of military history, ballistic performance of individual rounds, doctrinal warfare, and firearms laws.

You know I can tell you're an expert? You use terms like "Barrett sniper rifle." Yeah, that's a phrase a knowledgeable person would use. Totally.

And look, a nice, subtle dehumanization. Texas! That's where undesirable white men live! They're vermin scum so it's fair for me to have total, open contempt for them. They're barely even Americans at all! Bunch of backwards, sistter-fucking hillbillies!

If you want to know why I want my rights, aside that they're, you know, my goddamn rights, is to defend myself from people like you. Well, not you like you. You're a goddamn coward. More like the people you'll send to enslave me.

I really can't stress this enough; the disparity between how smart you think you are, and your demonstrated stupidity is simply stunning.

@Anon. again. pick a name please. this is great theater. I want to be able to give you credit for the performance.

"If you want to know why I want my rights, aside that they're, you know, my goddamn rights, is to defend myself from people like you. Well, not you like you. You're a goddamn coward. More like the people you'll send to enslave me. "

who is coming after you? who wants your rights? are they in a vault somewhere? Who is a coward? Who is trying to enslave you?

We won't even charge for the therapy session. Let's process this together. What happened to you? Childhood issues? Abuse? Were you bullied and getting a gun made you feel safe?

Do we need to write you a script for some meds to get your balance back?

You need to have a go back forth with the other various anons that crawled out of the right-wing swamp because it would appear that you can buy a conversion kit--however illegal to make some rifles full auto.

And apparently, this is new to me as I thought the laws changed back in the 1980s, you do not need to get a special permit to own a machine gun--so they say, as registering it with the ATF somehow doesn't count.

You love to name call and question folks' expertise. I have nothing to prove to you. I know who I know. Yes, some of those folks on TV, the consultants who come up with the plans, do analysis, and the like. No biggie. Most of them are pretty regular folks and a bit nerdy. One is actually sort of scary and tough; I digress though.

Believe it or not. As I said, I want to process your issues together and get to the heart of your paraphilia and fetish for guns.

Is your manhood limited if you can only have two guns? Are you objectively less safe? Will you not be able to fight off the zombies, werewolves, vampires, or mean evil men in black that are going to get you?

You and many others desire to limit my right to own personal property of my choosing: you want a legal limit on whether/how many/which firearms I can own. And you justify that position with arguments based on "reasonableness" or "need".

As someone already stated, we call them "rights", not "needs". No one really needs to demonstrate in front of City Hall: they won't keel over and die if they cannot stand there with a sign. But that isn't the point. You clearly fail to understand that rights are about human dignity. If you or some committee dictate what I can own for my personal use, you are insulting my character, my person, my dignity. You are imposing your desires on me. And that is just as wrong as a committee telling a black man that he cannot vote because the committee doesn't like him voting.

And "safety" or the potential to harm other citizens is a phony argument to limit rights. Consider carefully that any citizen could easily kill several hundred if not several thousand people with readily available items such as gasoline, welding gas canisters, snow plows, and small airplanes. So why the focus on small arms when so many alternatives are available?

I have any number of firearms at home and go out in public with a concealed handgun. I have never intimidated, threatened, or harmed anyone. I conduct business on a mutually agreeable basis with everyone else.

I do not make my community less safe. Quite the opposite: I am prepared to defend myself, my family, and possibly my community from criminals who seek to harm us.

But somehow that doesn't sit well with you so you want to label me as paranoid and limit my property and activities.

I'll let you limit my ownership and possession of firearms when you'll let me limit what you can say and write. After all, many a spoken or written word has incited violence. We best have a committee approve everyone's speech as well as their method of delivery. We wouldn't want a tool like the Internet to enable just any old person to disseminate their message to untold thousands of people. That could be dangerous.

CDV said, "Is your manhood limited if you can only have two guns? Are you objectively less safe?"

When you or a committee tell me whether/what kind/how many objects I can build, purchase, store, or possess, you or that committee have insulted my dignity -- you have placed yourself above me.

If a committee of people said that blacks could only live in Alabama, is that okay? After all they can live quite nicely in a beautiful state with nice weather and plenty of options for farming, employment, business, and recreation. Of course it is NOT okay to tell any group of people they can only live in Alabama.

When are you going to see that gun control has almost nothing to do with guns and everything to do with elitism and domination? When are you going to see that elitism and domination threaten everything?

I reject your "might makes right" position in favor of inalieanable rights that are not subject to arguments of rationality, social utility, or public approval.

In America, we have Republican, and Democratic political parties, one of these parties treats minorities as adults, with the expectation of them acting like adults.....the other one is the Democratic party.

If you repeat the lies often enough, you even believe them yourself, don't you? Oh well, I am a melanin deprived human being therefore anything I say or believe must be... (drumroll)... RACIST! Ever hear of a story of the little boy who cried wolf? You are just background static now.

If you want to compare black on black shootings then can you add in Regan's flood of drugs in the black community. See the Rep. do treat black people like adults but not human. Just like any country in South America the U.S. needed to destablize the hood and it worked quite well. Give them drugs, make gun laws easier (AK from a gun show can be got on the same day)

CDv doesn't want to take your guns away crazies! Yet I do worry about the tone of each of you. "I think of Heston's (Cold dead hands speech). Notice how it always ends in violence? Notice how many threats of violence? Funny I choose to defend my family by my vote and hard work. Each of these can limit my time with these nuts. I don't need a gun. If I lose a fight to a BETTER man than so be it. But my son won't learn that a Gun could save you. It also helps that my name is Bruto Alto (Big Stupid) I gifted with size and power but I'm just too dumb to follow the American code.

CDV explicitly stated that he wants government to take away my "unnecessary" (in his opinion more than two) guns. I don't know how you can get any clearer than that.

This isn't about guns. This is about another man or a committee telling me what property I can own.

Bruto Alto also said,"Funny I choose to defend my family by my vote and hard work. I gifted with size and power ..."

That is fantastic for you Bruto Alto. And that doesn't work for my 130 pound wife when she is facing a criminal of your size. No one is telling you how to defend yourself or your family or which way to vote. Don't tell me or my 130 pound wife that we have to face vicious attackers with a cell phone.

Again, this isn't about guns. Guns are simply forcing the hand of people like Bruto Alto and CDV who want to dictate what other people do. That is just as wrong as slave owners dictating what their slaves could do.

"This is about another man or a committee telling me what property I can own"

Do I need to name things you can't own in America? I could replace guns with slaves, women, hell even a nuke. There are things committee's have taken away. Most of these things are far too dangerous, violent (Tiger), or cruel. No one wants your wife not to have a nine or a glock. Does she need an auto(any gun here)? If she does then why and where do you live? If you can afford high ticket guns, but live in a crappy area where you may live in danger then you have other problems.

Lastly, my wife has her C.L. and can shoot. Does she need to carry a pistol daily....nope. As CDv says your fear of "phantom peril" is way too high. My fear is seen every month; some guy takes his guns and goes on a killing spree after (whatever reason of choice). A post above wanted examples of white men killing sprees. Postmen stories/military stories have been almost yearly.

Black racism continues, it is an evil industry just like white racism. Today there is one white on black crime committed for every five black on white crimes of violence.

I'm old enough to remember the time when it was perfectly acceptable to purchase through the mail a firearm from the Sears and Roebuck catalog. Were times more evil then when firearms were more easily available?

The government recognizes that there are over 250 million firearms in the country today, even if it were politically possible to pass a law to outlaw every single one of them how do you propose to confiscate all of those firearms? There are a few who would turn in their firearms but a majority of Americans won't. The only way to remove legally owned weapons then (from those who posses them) is to use government sponsored and approved violence; that has always been the collectivists plan.

For simplicity's sake, I'll just focus on the "keep" part of the right to keep and bear arms, since your views on ownership and property rights in general speak volumes:

Who defines "responsible" gun ownership?

Who sets the number of guns citizens (what about non-citizens, such as resident aliens?) are given the privilege of owning? Is it two or one or some other number? Do some people get to own more than others? How would this be determined?

Are certain currently legal guns to be considered off-limits? Which guns would those be?

What happens to those who currently own a) more than the yet-to-be legally prescribed limit of (pick a number) guns or guns that will have been determined to be unnecessary by this yet-to-be-determined authority?

Would gun owners who by diktat will have been transformed into criminals be expected to turn those guns in? Will they be compensated? Who sets the value of such compensation? How will it be paid for?

What would happen if the government held a gun turn-in and nobody came? Is confiscation the next step? How will that be executed?

Just wondering how your "responsible" gun ownership model might work in the real world.

I find much of the discussion I have read on this thread somewhat disturbing. CDV, and some on the other side don't see the greater context in which the bill of rights was created, or that it has been completely destroyed, finished off over the last 12 years. This is not a left-right issue, that in itself is a false construct. Change your paradigm! Pull back and observe objectively. Think about the issue in a historical and human suffering/loss perspective.

I’m a former Army staff officer, and I’ve studied this subject extensively as part of my career.

Every human being is an individual, and has natural rights, whether they are subverted by a law, or by a criminal (individual or government). Governments have over the last century been the greatest mortal threat to individuals than anything else, more than crime, killing almost 100 million people.

"If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?”― Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

The Bill of Rights was a brilliant advancement in individual liberty, the most important action since Magna Carta, but just as Magna Carta was wiped off the books during times of inconvenience to the regime and powered interests, so has the Bill of Rights.

Within the Bill of Rights the (non-abridgeable) right for a free press, echos of Magna Carta, such as the right to trial by jury, and recognition of private property and to be secure in ones papers (4th), also lies the second amendment. It is probably of lesser importance to a free society than the others. However, when the other rights have been treasonously wiped away because of inconvenience to the regime, it becomes one of the last safeties against tyranny.

Those that are intellectually honest can agree we have entered a phase of soft tyranny. Some brilliant people on the left such as Chris Hedges (watch his interviews on youtube), Glen Greenwald, Chalmers Johnson and Noam Chomsky all agree with this assessment. Chris Hedges has gone so far to say that there is no longer any means to restore the democratic republic through voting, and all that is left to the people is revolt. The government has been captured in a fascist grip by the banking interests and international money interests including 3rd party nation states and the military industrial complex.

The empire will fall: It is a historical law that every empire in history which becomes militarily and financially overstretched, collapses – USSR, Rome, Greece, ancient China, the British Empire, Macedon (Alexander). If these empires maintain tyranny abroad, during the fall of empire, the tyranny is eventually turned inward, unless the empire is abandoned.

Enter the 2nd Amendment: Just as the framers extensively discussed, the 2nd is a check against government tyranny. Just as they warned against banks, and standing armies, they sought to ensure that unlike the empires of the past, the power of the country was overweighed on the side of the people, including the power of violence. This was the beginning of bottom-up, rather than top-down. Even now, though the 2nd is only a shadow of it’s intent (regulated to a dwarf of what it once was) all based on “good intentions” of public safety, ever increasing the power of whomever controlling the state.

This leaves us where we are today. As tyranny increases, until the empire is abandoned, ever more violence will be initiated against the people here by the state. The check against initiated violence is the ever present threat of defense. Somewhat like the Swiss, the lowly American people maintain (knowingly, and unknowingly) a strategy of deterrence against open aggression, warfare and violence against the people. There exists a seldom mentioned contingency, that if open violence and warfare are escalated against innocent people, an outright insurgency will develop and target those aggressing powers. The government simply does not have enough firepower, or tactical capability under their control to succeed in such a campaign except in small pockets around the country. These arms may hopefully not ever need to be put to use if the deterrent is strong enough. It could buy time, and provide for an open peaceful dialogue to reshape the country back in favor of the common person.

If the deterrent fails, a Balkanization of the US will result. Just as countries in Europe are under threat of seceding regions (Catalonia, Sicily, Venice, Scotland, etc), so will regions of the US break apart. If one studies complex systems, that is the natural result of any unstable top-down system. A catalyst causes the pile of sand to fall to a more balanced and stable new equilibrium.

What I have written in the previous paragraphs outlines the larger game that is playing out. How it impacts individuals may vary. A prudent individual will have the means to protect themselves and their family, a firearm which the government cannot take away, because the next George Bush that is “elected” won’t know about it.

During similar times in history, governments gone rogue have targeted minority groups as a scapegoat to the problems that were created by the same governments and to distract from the truth. In modern times, Muslims, and Hispanics are the most obvious and likely targets. Others that appear different may also be targeted such as the Sikhs. It is every human being’s moral responsibility to protect their neighbor and their own family. Hence, it is a moral responsibility to prepare to defend those individuals that may be targeted.

A pistol by it’s very nature is not a military offensive weapon, it’s a last ditch defensive weapon, if one’s rifle goes down, because it’s better than a stick.

An AR-15 is not a military weapon nor is a Kalashnikov that is available in the US, they do not have select fire (full auto capability). Full auto mode on weapons systems are most useful during break-contact engagements – trying to get out of harms way when meeting with overwhelming force.

Mortars are effective for hitting/defending targets in combination with assault maneuver and security elements by small teams without air or substantial ground assets.

Having multiple rifles is useful because some, along with ammunition may be cached away in the wilderness that can be picked up while under pursuit by agressive forces. They can also be provided to people that do not have arms available.

"If you want to compare black on black shootings then can you add in Regan's flood of drugs in the black community. See the Rep. do treat black people like adults but not human. Just like any country in South America the U.S. needed to destablize the hood and it worked quite well. Give them drugs, make gun laws easier (AK from a gun show can be got on the same day) "

Typical professional victim; "the man made me do it"Do you realise just how ridiculous your assertions look?Go & learn to stand on your own two feet, rather than blaming all & sundry for your group's inability to improve itself.

The point to the comment above was the Republican party has used american resources to attack black americans. When Black people say Regan was the devil they had good reason.

WW II the US gave black soldiers V.D.'s as test subjects. Less than two years ago women in N.C. were given forced sterilization. Things haven't gotten better. Now because I choose to speak on the problems there "assertions"...yeah whatever.

I 'm not using these attacks as a crutch to explain my own short cummings. I need to read more and lose some weight.

Nevermind I went to college, have a great job, and I'm a homeowner in the suburbs.

I correct white people all the time for the same tones of racism "You speak so well" (I speak well for whom a "black guy")

"Don't blame the white man for your life" Well I'm taking the time to learn my history because..."Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it"

Let me take a moment to agree with you. Regan did some really bad stuff. The CIA pushing of drugs on the LA streets is well documented.

He also allowed / coordinated some horrendous stuff in south america: torture, mass CIA murder, etc.

Yes, the government gave STDs to Black soldiers, but they gave lots of other soldiers stuff all the way up to Vietnam, I know someone who it happened to.

The government also sprayed radioactive powder on urban St. Louis in the 50s.

Oh how the government loves the little people, count the ways...

That is why the gun control argument is utterly insane! It's an exercise in cognitive dissonance. An organization that you concede preys on people, murders it's citizens, and especially exploits individuals that happen to have a darker shade of dermis, the gestapo stop and frisk tactics (http://www.policemisconduct.net/nobody-wants-hear-truth/), that locks up the largest population in the world for victimless crimes, is evil.

Now tell me again how it's a good idea for this same evil bunch of thugs to take, regulate and have a record of what firearms you have, your only remaining defense against the bad people?????

A war may be coming, and it will be between the exploiters and the exploited (we are here - black white, brown little people that don't have government seats, lobbyists, or Learjets).

I would suggest you stop admiring the power of the big bad wolf as it stalks you, and start building some means of defense for your family and community. Get your head straight and recognize who the enemy is and who it is not.

Arm up, but having arms is not enough. You must practice, practice, practice. Maybe we'll be lucky, and we can get through this peacefully, but you should still arm up because it will send a strong message of deterrence to the bad people.

"code words" ? Would you mind speaking plain English so that I might understand your assertions?

"democracy" is what the US Constitution is meant to defend Americans from. A democracy transforms to tyranny in very short order (every time, so far). See Mr. Codreas links. The Unites States was founded as a Republic for the purpose of securing the liberty of individuals.

"securing" may well require vigilance involving many and large weapons as well as personal weapons. If you wish to remain free, you will secure the means and organization to make it so.

Some shit has gone wrong along the way, not least: popular election of US Senators, voting ourselves bad money, high taxes, and unlimited worthless free shit, in return for servitude and close observation. Isabel Paterson does some nice background in "The God of the Machine".

If I could have 2 guns with unlimited ammo and barrels: M240B (aluminum frame!) and Ruger Mkiii pistol. I want an M2 and a BAR, but they are too heavy for walking without a crew. The game is remote controlled toy aircraft shooting with shared video and telemetry for both teams. Edit video for cable TV royalties.

Everyone no matter what the race should keep and bear arms as part of their duty to their country. While only adults should be carrying in public, it's perfectly fine by me to teach children how to handle them properly - it gives them respect for them and keeps them from playing with them when you aren't looking. I teach rifle marksmanship and I end up teaching kids a lot of times. I think the youngest one was 9 so far. More typically they'll be around 12 to 18. Some of the best marksmen I have taught have been teenage girls. They just seem to have a natural knack for it.

Gun control was first enacted to keep black people from having them, if you read your history. And the nice folks at the local gun shop tell me that a lot of the people coming in to buy guns are black ladies who are scared of rising crime in their own neighborhoods.

When you get a gun, learn to use it, get good with it at the range, and learn to be responsible with it. A gun by itself is an inanimate object, it is useless without you, and in combat against another armed person you would be pretty useless without it. But YOU are the real weapon.

Chauncey, I do NOT condone that guy who said he was going to torture you. I think he is being very mean and hateful, and dishonorable. I hope he is not serious.

Ice-T: Yeah, it’s legal in the United States. It’s part of our Constitution. You know, the right to bear arms is because that’s the last form of defense against tyranny. Not to hunt. It’s to protect yourself from the police.

Tips and Support Are Always Welcome

Who is Chauncey DeVega?

I have been a guest on the BBC, National Public Radio, Ring of Fire Radio, Ed Schultz, Sirius XM's Make it Plain, Joshua Holland's Alternet Radio Hour, the Thom Hartmann radio show, the Burt Cohen show, and Our Common Ground.

I have also been interviewed on the RT Network and Free Speech TV.

I am a contributing writer for Salon and Alternet.

My writing has also been featured by Newsweek, The New York Daily News, Raw Story, The Huffington Post, and the Daily Kos.

My work has also been referenced by MSNBC, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, the Associated Press, Chicago Sun-Times, Raw Story, The Washington Spectator, Media Matters, The Gothamist, Fader, XOJane, The National Memo, The Root, Detroit Free Press, San Diego Free Press, the Global Post, as well as online magazines and publications such as The Atlantic, Slate, The Week, The New Republic, Buzzfeed, Counterpunch, Truth-Out, Pacific Standard, Common Dreams, The Daily Beast, The Washington Times, The Nation, RogerEbert.com, Ebony, and The Chronicle of Higher Education.

Fox News, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Juan Williams, Herman Cain, Alex Jones, World Net Daily, Twitchy, the Free Republic, the National Review, NewsBusters, the Media Research Council, Project 21, and Weasel Zippers have made it known that they do not like me very much.